The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Evfimiya in Edesse and Evfimiya in Chalcedon: two hagiographical legends against the background of dogmatic disputes

v. M. Lurye


In article two hagiographical legends — Syrian (but made in Constantinople) a legend of a miracle of edessky martyrs Guria, Samona and Aviva and the Constantinople Byzantine legend of St. Evfimiya's martyrdom are considered. The conclusion is drawn on a polemic protivopostavlennost of a legend of a miracle of edessky martyrs and St. Evfimiya, some of forms of the Constantinople cult, in connection with disputes because of the Chalcedonian cathedral. Specification and final verification of this conclusion — a problem of the next stage of researches.

B. Lourie



The two hagiographical legends are analysed in the article: Syrian (while composed in Constantinople) miracle story about the martyrs Gury, Samonas and Habib and the Byzantine Constantinopolitan Martyrium of St. Euphemia. The study resulted in the conclusion that the two legends were polemically counterpoised in the struggle over the Council of Chalcedon. A further inquiry and verification of the present conclusion will be provided at the next stage of the research.

The hagiography traditionally played a role of the main thing in dogmatic disputes of the Christian Middle Ages church media. All parties of the dogmatic conflicts stated the positions in language of hagiographical legends, i.e. in language of symbols clear to the people, and not just in logical language of theological and polemic treatises. The question of "reliability" of any given texts can therefore to be put similar to a question which historians of the Latest time face — about reliability of newspaper messages, modern to the events interesting them. Of course, newspaper cliches and hagiographical symbols are arranged differently, but their function is identical: to mediate the relations of mass consciousness with reality.

For this reason it turns out how it was shown in the 20th century by great bollandist (members of Société des Bollandistes created in an award of Jesuits in the 17th century only for studying a Christian hagiography) what as much as "improbable" legend always has concrete historical smysl1.

Below we will consider history of two hagiographical legends, closely connected among themselves and reflecting dogmatic fight around Chalcedonian (the Fourth Universal) the cathedral (451 g) which proclaimed a christological doctrine in very disputable from the point of view of many contemporaries, a formulation. Within the next century, up to the Fifth Ecumenical council (553 g), the balance of forces between supporters and opponents of Chalcedon repeatedly changed that, after all, led to serious adjustment accepted on this cathedral dogmatic postanovleniy2.

1. Miracle of Saint martyrs Guria, Samona and Aviva

The legend of a posthumous miracle of edessky martyrs Guria, Samona and Aviva will become starting point of the analysis. It completely remained in Syriac (two manuscripts), but slightly reduced Greek version remained in the much bigger number of lists and editions, without speaking about the uncountable number of any short summaries of this story in Greek.

The Syrian name — "A Story about Evfi-miya, the Daughter Sofia, and about a Miracle Which Was Made with Them by Confessors Samon, Gury and Aviv". In the Greek text this story usually makes the annex to Martyrdom Guria, Samona and Aviva3 also is called simply "A miracle of martyrs Guria, Samona and Aviva". This that miracle because of which these three edessky martyrs began to be considered deliberate patrons of Christian marriage and which provided them popularity far outside Syria, up to modern national piety of all traditionally orthodox countries.

On rare happiness, we should deal not with raw material of the hagiographical document now, and with already begun by A.V. Paykova (1932 — 1984) issledovani-em4 which needs to be continued. A.V. Paykova thought that before her something like the short historical novel and therefore she did not raise any specific questions which should be turned to the hagiographical document in the work. So, for example, she tried to estimate "characteristic of female images", without understanding that she deals with symbols which gender accessory is defined by most of all grammatical gender of the corresponding nouns. But all this misunderstanding of specifics of the hagiographical document did not prevent Ration to make very important observations of historical and philological character.

One of the main results of A.V. Paykova — the proof of primacy of the Syrian text in relation to Greek and even moreover — the proof that the most ancient Greek edition turned out as a result of slightly reduced translation from reached us Syrian. It is not trivial result in itself, but its not triviality becomes especially clear if to consider that at the end of our legend it is told that it was made on the basis of ancient books by a certain monk Ioann (Yukhannan) in Constantinople, and at all not in Syria.

Agiograf (obviously, represented as the author of one of "ancient books" which Yukhannan used) refers to the story personally to it the old priest from "sacred church in Edesse" (so, without further specifications, speak usually about the main temple of the city, which as we know, was devoted to Sofia) knowing all history personally from both of her main characters. Here we deal with the fact that the founder of a modern critical hagiography Ippolit Delee called "la fiction du témoin bien informé" ("a fiction of well informed witness") 5.

The beginning of history is dated 707 g "on calculation of Greeks", i.e. according to Hera Selevqui-dov that gives 395/396 year according to R.H.

History slightly of an anakhronisticheska comes to an end — in episcopacy of Mar of Eulogius which proceeded according to the Edessky chronicle from 378 g (years of accession of Theodosius the Cenobiarch) on 387 g ± 1 god6.

Point of dating till Mar to Eulogius quite obvious: as we will see now, it is téléscopage on formativny period7, and here the point of dating of 707 g is not obvious and, maybe, will be especially interesting.

Datings on an absolute chronological scale, thus, were mixed so that the legend as if begins in the future, and comes to an end in the past. But in fact it develops besides an absolute chronological scale, and all elements of a legend issued under absolute chronology serve only the symbolical and not chronological purposes. The legend moves not of the past to the future and not of the future to the past, and simply orthogonally by historical time about which she does not care.

The plot of a legend is as follows. In Edesse the Roman army called for war with the Huns attacking the empire from the East stopped. As a part of this army was certain ill-natured got which stopped in Sofia's house (the name it is not told, but the ethnonym "гот" serves vmes-

that proper name). After many arrangements of Got convinced Sofia to give to it in marriage her daughter Evfimiya. Got lay that in the country it has no family and that soon they with the wife will return to Edessa to lodge there forever. About it he swore at relics of martyrs Guria, Samona and Aviva — Edessa's patrons — at marriage (marriage and in the 4th century, and in the 6th century remained at Christians a ceremony secular, but in this case the religious making oath at relics was specially included). Daughters he made different rich gifts. Sofia, after all, agreed. Got brought Evfimiya into the house where made her the slave of the jealous wife. When at Evfimiya the son similar on Gotha, the wife was born Gotha poisoned him. Evfimiya found the baby already in an agony, but managed to collect by a wool piece foam from his lips. Then she found a case to mix this foam with drink to the madam — so that that if it did not poison the baby, would be left without harm, but in case the baby after all was poisoned, would get poisoned also. The wife Gotha dies. Got and his relatives accuse Evfimiya and decide to deal shortly with her cruelly. They thought up to immure her in a crypt together with a dead body of the wife Gotha that Evfimiya suffered a smell of the decaying corpse. Locals felt sorry for Evfimiya and she thought in the morning to release, but relatives Gotha filled up an entrance with a big stone and put guards (meaning, needless to say, an evangelical sample). In the morning they assumed to bring her and to shoot arrows. In a crypt Evfimiya begged Guria, Sa-mona and Aviva, and they promised it to help with vision. The stench of a corpse turned into aroma, and Evfimiya fell asleep. She woke up early in the morning already in Edesse near the temple of martyrs (here the agiograf explains that it moved in the same way as Habakkuk in a ditch to Daniil; see Dan. 14, 33—39). Evfimiya Samon (Shamu-na) in an image of the aged man is, and Evfimiya comes in

the temple of martyrs, hears as it is impossible the words of church service which were more suitable it and prays itself so that it attracts attention the church altar boy. She tells it the story, and it sends for Sofia who, thus, directly in church learns how the situation was. All the time of an otstutstviye of the daughter she did not cease to pray for it to Saints Guria, Samona and Aviva to whose guarantee it entrusted it. After a while the Roman army came to Edessa again to protect her from the Persians and Huns who intruded in the country. It was necessary to come there and Gotha who was identified by somebody from neighbors Evfimiya and Sofia. Gotha did not begin to be told about Evfimiya's return, and Sofia, having agreed to neighbors, invited him on a visit. Got began to tell how he wanted to come to it as he purely accidentally did not manage to take Evfimiya and that they gave birth to the son. After that Sofia publicly exposed its deception, Evfimiya left to Gotha, Got turned pale and grew dumb, and it was handed over for court to a stratilat which sentenced him at first to burning, but, according to the petition of the bishop Eulogius, softened a sentence before truncation we throw.

Stating a plot, I missed the small historical introduction to a legend which as showed Paykov, contains literal quotes from the Syrian Chronicle Iyesha Stilita (Stolpnika) who was finished in 506 g or soon later. It gives the first terminus post quem for dating of a legend.

Further Paykov was mistaken and made such assumption (though without full confidence) which would be absolutely appropriate in the analysis of the "normal" historiographic document, but is absolutely inappropriate in the analysis of a hagiographical legend. It recognized that two invasions of Huns to Edessa are mentioned in a legend. From them the first was in 395 g so dating of a legend indicates 707 g it. (We will add what here and occurs telescopage of it and other events on

Only meaning everything told, it is possible to start "combing" of historiographic sources. We will look not for invasions of Huns, but some events after 506 g which could be perceived in Edesse similar to invasion is ready in 395 g, to the described Iyesh Stilitom and, on fair observation Ration, being forced to affect and for the author of a legend. These Gotha, being a part of romeysky army, came to the city as defenders, but created the terrifying excesses worse than enemies. Most important mistake Ration: it looked for in chronicles of "Huns" (who were required to be looked for by rules of work with historical sources here), and it was necessary to look for in chronicles "is ready" (which follow from rules of a critical hagiography).

Historians seek to look for real Huns, but not obviously legendary Gotha, but they usually do not understand that in hagiographical legends the historical contents is directly connected with figures fictional, and some known historical realities are used only vspomogatelno — how they could be used in historical novels. Therefore it is necessary to look for in chronicles after all Gotha and not to be confused its notorious fabulosity. As chronicles for the first half of the 6th century remained neplokho11, we have every chance to find required.

And we find it, and — again a rare fortune — under "own" name: "Гот". Such is a constant nickname of Vit liana (which was not ethnic Ghat at all; it was a Thracian) at the anonymous Monophysite chronicler whose work was included in Monophysite compilation of Church history already familiar to us on the basis of Zachariah Ritor's work (VII, 13; VIII, 2). To the historiographer this Vitalian is disgusting so that he refuses to call by his proper name, and calls not differently as — pointing "Got" by this abusive nickname to zlovery and mean temper Vitaliana.

Historically Vitalian was enfant terrible of Chalcedon.

It was good to write about it to Feofan (Anno Mundi 6006, 6007 and 6012) a century later. He was able to afford to write about the orthodox general who after the events of 511 — 512 (when the emperor Anastasius displaced the Constantinople patriarch Macedonius and other orthodox bishops, i.e. supporters of Enotikon published in 482 g of the emperor Zinon, but to Chalcedon loyal, having replaced them with Severians, anafematstvovavshy Chalcedon) excited a rebellion with the requirement to return all these bishops on departments and to bring together new cathedral with participation of the Pope. Feofan describes this revolt as successful, and failure of cathedral attributes entirely to Anastasius's insidiousness.

Other supporter of Chalcedon, but separated from events only decades, but not centuries Evagrius Scholasticus does not mention religious motives of a revolt Vitaliana at all, and concerning indignation of the Constantinople common people concerning addition "raspnyysya for ny" in the Trisagion does not hide the indignation ("as if it [this increase] absolutely rejected belief Christian!" — Evagrius exclaims) and blames for all the patriarch Macedonius, considering the appeal to common people the main reason of his shift (Church history, III, 43 — 44; it is curious to compare to Feofan's interpretation: he has Macedonius — the Saint confessor making miracles). About requirements Vitaliana to call cathedral for protection of Chalcedon Evagrius prefers not to mention at all. It is quite obvious that, being a supporter of Chalcedon, he considered that friends it seems Vitaliana only compromise cathedral. And still characteristic feature: Vitaliana Evagrius calls army "a great number of Huns" ("Huns" — frequent designation various ethnically, but barbarians, equally disgusting for Byzantines). All its revolt is described to similarly enemy invasion.

But the Syrian successor of Zachariah Ritor (VIII, 2) who Vitaliana calls by driving motive his relationship with the patriarch Antioch Flavian (498 — 512) displaced in favor of Sevir and hatred personally to Sevir Antiokhiysky is the closest than

to a position of our legend.

In Anastasius's government the revolt Vitaliana came to an end in nothing: after unsuccessful attempt to take Constantinople when it was broken in sea battle, Vee-talian with the remained army ran on the North of the empire and there sat out. Situation changed after accession of challahs-kidonita Yustina I (518 — 527). Vitalian declared the loyalty at once, received a high post from Yustina and was invited to Constantinople, but almost at once, in the same 520 g, killed whether on the way to the royal palace (so at the successor Zachariah), whether directly in the palace (so at Evagrius).

Feofan narrates about it chilly: "... Vitalian is killed artfully with those from Byzantines who were angry on it for destruction of their so many compatriots at its revolt against Anastasius". But Evagrius writes even more explicitly, than the Syrian successor of Zachariah stating the same version: "Expecting providently that Vee-taliana not differently could be disposed to humility as having assumed a type of his friend, Yustin covered the insidiousness — an impenetrable mask and declared him the military leader of one part of so-called permanent troops; and then, to inspire in it still the big power of attorney and to entice it in deception, it made it in consuls. In the consul's dignity Vitalian came to the palace and at one palace door was artfully destroyed. So it paid for those disasters which caused to the Roman kingdom". (Translation SPbDA12).

Still in our history it was possible to see Gotha which turns violence against those whom would have to protect,

and to make sure of its fair killing by order of the Byzantine supreme authority. Also we can think of presence at our history of Sofia now (so far as in the center of events there was Constantinople). But at what here our edessky Sofia and, especially, Evfi-miya?

But here one of our historians — Zachariah's successor — gives one more hint (historians-halkidonity of such hint do not give as to them, it is obvious, inconvenient to tell about it: they do not want to compromise the brother in faith Yus-tin; Zachariah's successor writes about Yus-tine with sympathy too, but without deliberate apologetics). He has one more, second Evfimiya.

It appears, reconciliation Vitaliana with Yustin took place as follows. Its first meeting with the emperor was a secret and took place in Chalcedon, in St. Evfimiya's temple where both connected themselves by oaths on the relation to each other. Zachariah's successor even despite this costs on the party Yustina, acquitting him with what Vitaliana it was impossible to win differently against, than cunning.

We can add that St. Ev-fimiya's temple was chosen not as accidental and obvious for reasons. In this temple the Chalcedonian cathedral in which protection, according to Vitaliana, it began the revolt took place. — Here we already also approach closely religious subjects for the sake of which only and hagiographical legends can be formed. It would be quite mad to believe as if the hagiographical legend can be formed as an analog of the historical novel — to place heroes with their psychological problems on some Wednesday similar to historical. Let's repeat: hagiographical legends are generated by a cult, belong to a cult and not "cultures" serve the interests of a cult in secular understanding of this word and only a cult, and at all.

much do not coincide with the dometafrastovy martyrdom which reached us which therefore it is dated time not earlier than the 5th century (when from Evfimiya's martiriya that image of her sufferings which was described by Astery had to disappear and manage to be forgotten). The first researchers of hagiographical legends were surprised by such changes of the biography of the same Saints, but Delee showed that this phenomenon rather typical, and St. Evfimiya's case — not the most radical; existence of more or less authentic historical legend about life of the Saint does not guarantee it at all against creation of Passion épique in which the old Saint will receive new biografiyu16.

Anything special at Asteriya is not reported about St. Evfimiya's miracles. From this it is possible to judge with confidence that then they did not make a part of its cult. The same is confirmed also by notes of pilgrims of the same era.

Now we will return to our legend.

The historical background when it contacts a cult (as in this case — with Evfimiya's cult), becomes a part of hagiographical substrate. So far as in our case in hagiographical substrate there is a motive of opposition between Evfimiya and zloveriy Gotha which, by definition, is "Arian", there is natural a choice of an epic formativny era — time of a victory over Arians at Mar Eulogius. But here we run forward as still absolutely not clearly why Edessa appears in our legend, especially as as we remember, her originator writes that he is in Constantinople.

Therefore we will return meanwhile to Constantinople time Yustina I and we will look how the situation with St. Evfimiya's cult then was.

At once it becomes clear that at the immediate turn of the state ideology which took place at Yustina towards Chalcedon St. Evfimiya's cult again vykho-

dit on one of the first places. No more, no less, the empress at construction in 518 g changes the former name for a throne of Irkt (being considered as indecent, especially for the empress; who though knows Latin a little, that will understand) addressed to Evfimiya.

Certainly, the empress Evfimiya cares for grandeur of the Chalcedonian temple, reconstructs it, considerably having expanded, and, it is quite obvious that now St. Evfimiya's cult again, as well as during an era of Chalcedon, becomes the instrument of halkido-nitsky promotion.

At last we find traces of that cult to which our legend of edessky Sofia and Evfimiya had to resist. Already movement of couple of Sofia and Evfimiya from Constantinople and Chalcedon to Edessa looks not really loyally in relation to the Chalcedonian cathedral. Yes, the Sofia in Edesse was, but it is yet not an occasion to appropriate Edesse as well St. Evfimiya. However, what else to expect from a legend which turned the defender of Chalcedon Vitaliana, though not an angel, into the Arian heretic...

Having told that we find "traces" of that cult, for opposition to which our legend was necessary, we even slightly were overmodest. This cult is perfectly known, and the only thing that caused care in our formulation, is an uncertainty of that concrete phase of development of this cult which is modern to our legend.

It is, certainly, about a so-called Miracle of St. Evfimiya in Chalcedon. But it is a subject of separate article.

As a result of the analysis done by the present moment we can already note that the historical analysis of hagiographical legends allows to look at them as on tools of dogmatic polemic, or, being expressed more precisely, on those tools which allow to make dogmatic polemic common property (or that the same, to involve this masses in dogmatic polemic).

1 Similar studying hagiographical legends was begun in the 1930th of the lake. Paul Peeters, bollandist. The first theoretical generalization was given by other bollandist, M. van Esbruk: M. van Esbroeck, Le saint comme symbole//The Byzantine Saint. University of Birmingham XIV Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies/Ed. by S. Hackel. London, 1981 (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, 5) 128 — 140. In detail about all this see: V.M. Lurye. Critical hagiography. T. 1: Hagiographical document and its device. — SPb., 2008 (in the press).
2 In more detail about peripetias of these disputes see: V.M. Lurye. History of the Byzantine philosophy. Formativny period. — SPb., 2006.
3 It is the Syrian text of the 4th century which dispersed in transfers and transpositions almost in all languages of the Christian world. Gury and Samon (sir. Shamun) suffered at the end of the 3rd century, and Aviv (sir. Habbib) — at the beginning of the 4th century
4 In posthumously published monograph: A.V. Paykova. Legends and legends in monuments to the Syrian hagiography//the Palestinian collection. Issue 30 (93). — L., 1990.
5 Delehaye H. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Deuxième édition, revue et corrigée//Subsidia hagiographica, 13 B. - Bruxelles, 1966. - P. 182-183.
6 The chronology of the Edessky chronicle is restored to within 1 year as there is no full clarity about what start date of year her author used.
7 The essence of this phenomenon which is also described by bollandist is that the choice of time of action for a hagiographical legend always has symbolical value. If at the same time it is necessary to speak about events of different eras, then all of them equally will be projected ("skhlopnuty" if to try to convey the meaning of the term téléscopage) for that period of time to which there corresponds formation of some historical circumstances, basic for the maintenance of a legend. Therefore, for example, the majority of muchenichestvo are attributed Dekiya or Dioklitian's time.
8 The concept of hagiographical substrate is entered in work: Esbroeck M. van. Le substrat hagiographique de la mission Khazare de Constantin-Cyrille//Analecta Bollandiana 104. — 1986. — P. 337 — 348. Its sense consists in the following: any hagiographical legend is intertextual and even almost "tsentonna": she uses only those combinations of hagiographical symbols which are already active in that environment where it is created. Thus, any legend uses language of the previous legends. For more details see: V.M. Lurye. Critical hagiography. T. 1.
9 About this legend see: V.M. Lurye. Three Jerusalem of Lalibela. Interpretation of a complex of churches of Lalibela in the light of data of his Life//Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne XIII (2000) (= Miscellanea Aethiopica Reverendissimo Domino Stanislao Kur septuagenario professori illustrissimo, viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata). P. 117 — 140.
10 About a concept of hagiographical coordinates and their value see: Delehaye H. Cinq leçons sur la méthode hagiographique. Bruxelles, 1934 (Subsidia hagiographica, 21). These are the most important characteristics of any hagiographical legend: place which is main place of the corresponding cult and time of liturgical celebration. In detail see: V.M. Lurye. Critical hagiography. T. 1.
11 We will address the following chronicles: Brooks E. W. Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori adscripta. I, II. Lovanii, 1919, 1921, 1924 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vols. 83, 84, 87, 88; Sriptores Syri, tt. 38, 39, 41, 42); Boor C. de. Theophanis Chronographia, vol. I, Lipsiae 1883; Bidez J., Pamentier L. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, with the scholia, London, 1898 (Byzantine texts).
12 Tsit. on: Evagrius Scholasticus. Church history / Lane of SPb. Spiritual Academy, it is reconsidered and corrected by V.V. Serpova; primech.: A. Kalinin. M, 1997.
13 Halkin F. Euphémie de Chalcédoine. Légendes byzantines. Bruxelles, 1965 (Subsidia hagiographica, 41). All editions of Martyrdom of Evfimiya will be quoted only according to this edition.
14 Halkin F. Euphémie de Chalcédoine... P. XI.
15 The edition of the text and its historical analysis see in: Halkin F. Euphémie de Chalcédoine...
16 In detail see: Delehaye H. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires.
Jael Pitts
Other scientific works: